The Principles Of Secularism.

by George Jacob Holyoake.

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY

"If you think it right to differ from the times, and to make a stand for any valuable point of morals, do it, however rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear; do it, not for insolence, but seriously--as a man who wore a soul of his own in his bosom, and did not wait till it was breathed into him by the breath of fashion."--The Rev. Sidney Smith, Canon of St Paul's.

IN a pa.s.sage of characteristic sagacity, Dr. J. H. Newman has depicted the partisan aimlessness more descriptive of the period when this little book first appeared, sixteen years ago, than it is now. But it will be long before its relevance and instruction have pa.s.sed away. I therefore take the liberty of still quoting his words:--

"When persons for the first time look upon the world of politics or religion, all that they find there meets their mind's eye, as a landscape addresses itself for the first time to a person who has just gained his bodily sight. One thing is as far off as another; there is no perspective. The connection of fact with fact, truth with truth, the bearing of fact upon truth, and truth upon fact, what leads to what, what are points primary and what secondary, all this they have yet to learn. It is all a new science to them, and they do not even know their ignorance of it. Moreover, the world of to-day has no connection in their minds with the world of yesterday; time is not a stream, but stands before them round and full, like the moon. They do not know what happened ten years ago, much less the annals of a century: the past does not live to them in the present; they do not understand the worth of contested points; names have no a.s.sociations for them, and persons kindle no recollections. They hear of men, and things, and projects, and struggles, and principles; but everything comes and goes like the wind; nothing makes an impression, nothing penetrates, nothing has its place in their minds. They locate nothing: they have no system. They hear and they forget; or they just recollect what they have once heard, they cannot tell where. Thus they have no consistency in their arguments; that is, they argue one way to-day, and not exactly the other way to-morrow, but indirectly the other way at random. Their lines of argument diverge; nothing comes to a point; there is no one centre in which their mind sits, on which their judgment of men and things proceeds. This is the state of many men all through life; and miserable politicians or Churchmen they make, unless by good luck they are in safe hands, and ruled by others, or are pledged to a course. Else they are at the mercy of the wind and waves; and without being Radical, Whig, Tory, or Conservative, High Church or Low Church, they do Whig acts, Tory acts, Catholic acts, and Heretical acts, as the fit takes them, or as events or parties drive them. And sometimes when their self importance is hurt, they take refuge in the idea that all this is a proof that they are unfettered, moderate, dispa.s.sionate, that they observe the mean, that they are no 'party men;' when they are, in fact, the most helpless of slaves; for our strength in this world is, to be the subjects of the reason and our liberty, to be captives of the truth."*

How the organization of ideas has fared with higher cla.s.s societies others can tell: the working cla.s.s have been left so much in want of initiative direction that almost everything has to be done among them, and an imperfect and brief attempt to direct those interested in Freethought may meet with some acceptance. To clamour for objects without being able to connect them with principles; to smart under contumely without knowing how to protect themselves; to bear some lofty name without understanding the manner in which character should correspond to profession--this is the amount of the popular attainment.

* "Loss and Gain." ascribed to the Rev. Father Newman.

In this new Edition I find little to alter and less to add. In a pa.s.sage on page 27, the distinction between Secular instruction and Secularism is explained, in these words:--"Secular education is by some confounded with Secularism, whereas the distinction between them is very wide. Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge separately--by itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The advocate of Secular education may be, and generally is, also an advocate of religion; but he would teach religion at another time and treat it as a distinct subject, too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard and vexatious routine of a school. He would confine the inculcation of religion to fitting seasons and chosen instruments. He holds also that one subject at a time is mental economy in learning. Secular education is the policy of a school--Secularism is the policy of life to those who do not accept Theology."

Very few persons admitted that these distinctions existed when this pa.s.sage was written in 1854. This year, 1870, they have been substantially admitted by the Legislature in concession made in the National Education. Bill. It only remains to add that the whole text has been revised and re-arranged in an order which seems more consecutive.

The portion on Secular Organizations has been abridged, in part re-written, explaining particulars as to the Secular Guild.

A distinctive summary of Secular principles may be read under the article "Secularism," in Chambers's Cyclopaedia.

CHAPTER II. THE TERM SECULARISM.

"The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its including a large number of persons who are not Atheists, and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because, by the adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is found advantageous."--Harriet Martineau. _Boston Liberator_.--Letter to Lloyd Garrison, November, 1853.

EVERY one observant of public controversy in England, is aware of its improved tone of late years. This improved tone is part of a wider progress, 'Increase of wealth has led to improvement of taste, and the diffusion of knowledge to refinement of sentiment. The ma.s.s are better dressed, better mannered, better spoken than formerly. A coffee-room discussion, conducted by mechanics, is now a more decorous exhibition than a debate in Parliament was in the days of Canning.* Boisterousness at the tables of the rich, and insolence in the language of the poor, are fast disappearing. "Good society" is now that society in which people practise the art of being genial, without being familiar, and in which an evincible courtesey of speech is no longer regarded as timidity or effeminacy, but rather as proof of a disciplined spirit, which chooses to avoid all offence, the better to maintain the right peremptorily punishing wanton insult. Theologians, more inveterate in speech than politicians, now observe a respectfulness to opponents before unknown. That diversity of opinion once ascribed to "badness of heart" is now, with more discrimination, referred to defect or diversity of understanding--a change which, discarding invective, recognizes instruction as the agent of uniformity.

* From whose lips the House of Commons cheered a reference to a political adversary as "the revered and ruptured Ogden."

Amid all this newness of conception it must be obvious that many old terms of theological controversy are obsolete. The idea of an "Atheist"

as one warring against moral restraints--of an "Infidel" as one treacherous to the truth--of a "Freethinker" as a "loose thinker,"*

arose in the darkness of past times, when men fought by the flickering light of their hatreds--times which tradition has peopled with monsters of divinity as well as of nature. But the glaring colours in which the party names invented by past priests were dyed, no longer harmonize with the quieter taste of the present day. The more sober spirit of modern controversy has, therefore, need of new terms, and if the term "Secularism" was merely a neutral subst.i.tute for "Freethinking," there would be reason for its adoption. Dissenters might as well continue the designation of "Schismatics," or Political Reformers that of "Anarchists," as that the students of Positive Philosophy should continue the designation "Atheism," "Infidelism," or any similar term by which their opponents have contrived to brand their opinions. It is as though a merchant vessel should consent to carry a pirate flag.

Freethinker is, however, getting an acceptable term. Upon the platform, Christian disputants frequently claim it, and resent the exclusive a.s.sumption of it by others. These new claimants say, "We are as much Freethinkers as yourselves," so that it is necessary to define Freethinking. It is fearless thinking, based upon impartial inquiry, searching on both sides, not regarding doubt as a crime, or opposite conclusions as a species of moral poison. Those who inquire with sinister, pre-possessions will never inquire fairly. The Freethinker fears not to follow a conclusion to the utmost limits of truth, whether it coincides with the Bible or contradicts it. If therefore any p.r.o.nounce the term "Secularism" "a concealment or a disguise," they can do so legitimately only after detecting some false meaning it is intended to convey, and not on the mere ground of its being a change of name, since nothing can more completely "conceal and disguise"

the purposes of Freethought than the old names imposed upon it by its adversaries, which a.s.sociate with guilt its conscientious conclusions and impute to it as outrages, its acts of self-defence.

* As the Reverend Canon Kingsley has perversely rendered it.

Besides the term Secularism, there was another term which seemed to promise also distinctiveness of meaning--namely, Cosmism, under which adherents would have taken the designation of Cosmists. Rut this name scientific men would have understood in a purely physical sense, after the great example of Humboldt, and the public would not all have understood it--besides, it was open to easy perversion in one of its declinations. Next to this, as a name, stands that of Realism--intrinsically good. A Society of Realists would have been intelligible, but many would have supposed it to be some revival of the old Realists. Moralism, a sound name in itself, is under Evangelical condemnation as "mere morality." Naturalism would seem an obvious name, were it not that we should be confounded with Naturalists, to say no more. Some name must be taken, as was the case with the Theophilan-thropists of Paris. Many of them would rather not have a.s.sumed any denomination, but they yielded to the reasonable argument, that if they did not choose one for themselves, the public would bestow upon them one which would be less to their liking. Those who took the name of Philantropes found it exposed them to a pun, which greatly damaged them: _Philantropes_ was turned into _filoux en troupe_.

Historical characteristics, however, seemed to point to a term which expressed the Secular element in life; a term deeply engrafted in literature; of irreproachable a.s.sociations; a term found and respected in the dictionaries of opponents, and to which, therefore, they might dispute our right, but which they could not damage. Instead, therefore, of finding ourselves self-branded or caricatured by this designation, we have found opponents claiming it, and disputing with us for its possession.

CHAPTER III. PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM DEFINED

I.

SECULARISM is the study of promoting human welfare by material means; measuring human welfare by the utilitarian rule, and making the service of others a duty of life. Secularism relates to the present existence of man, and to action, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life--having for its objects the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest perceivable point, as the immediate duty of society: inculcating the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or Christianity: engaging its adherents in the promotion of human improvement by material means, and making these agreements the ground of common unity for all who would regulate life by reason and enn.o.ble it by service. The Secular is sacred in its influence on life, for by purity of material conditions the loftiest natures are best sustained, and the lower the most surely elevated. Secularism is a series of principles intended for the guidance of those who find Theology indefinite, or inadequate, or deem it unreliable. It replaces theology, which mainly regards life as a sinful necessity, as a scene of tribulation through which we pa.s.s to a better world. Secularism rejoices in this life, and regards it as the sphere of those duties which educate men to fitness for any future and better life, should such transpire.

II.

A Secularist guides himself by maxims of Positivism, seeking to discern what is in Nature--what _ought_ to be in morals--selecting the _affirmative_ in exposition, concerning himself with the real, the right, and the constructive. Positive principles are principles which are provable. "A positive precept," says Bishop Butler, "is a precept the reason of which we see." Positivism is policy of material progress.

III.

Science is the available Providence of life. The problem to be solved by a science of Society, is to find that situation in which it shall be impossible for a man to be depraved or poor. Mankind are saved by being served. Spiritual sympathy is a lesser mercy than that forethought which antic.i.p.ates and extirpates the causes of suffering. Deliverance from sorrow or injustice is before consolation--doing well is higher than meaning well--work is worship to those who accept Theism, and duty to those who do not.

IV.

Sincerity, though not errorless, involves the least chance of error, and is without moral guilt. Sincerity is well-informed, conscientious conviction, arrived at by intelligent examination, animating those who possess that conviction to carry it into practice from a sense of duty. Virtue in relation to opinion consists neither in conformity nor non-conformity, but in sincere beliefs, and in living up to them.

V.

Conscience is higher than Consequence.*

*Vide Mr. Holdreth's Papers.

VI.

All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in the best sense in which this term appears to be used. A "good object" is an object consistent with truth, honour, justice, love. A pure "intent"

is the intent of serving humanity. Immediate service of humanity is not intended to mean instant gratification, but "immediate" in contradistinction to the interest of another life. The distinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good which is dictated by Nature, which is attainable by material means, and which is of immediate service to humanity--a religiousness to which the idea of G.o.d is not essential, nor the denial of the idea necessary.

VII.

Nearly all inferior natures are susceptible of moral and physical improvability; this improvability can be indefinitely secured by supplying proper material conditions; these conditions may one day be supplied by a system of wise and fraternal co-operation, which primarily entrenches itself in common prudence, which enacts service according to industrial capacity, and distributes wealth according to rational needs.

Secular principles involve for mankind a future, where there shall exist unity of condition with infinite diversity of intellect, where the subsistence of ignorance and selfishness shall leave men equal, and universal purity enable all things--n.o.ble society, the treasures of art, and the riches of the world--rto be had in common.

VIII.

Since it is not capable of demonstration whether the inequalties of human condition will be compensated for in another life--it is the business of intelligence to rectify them in this world. The speculative worship of superior beings, who cannot need it, seems a lesser duty than the patient service of known _inferior_ natures, and the mitigation of harsh destiny, so that the ignorant may be enlightened and the low elevated.